## Menachot Daf 15b

###### Menachot 15b:1
[Menachot 15b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:1)

שֶׁזָּרַע כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ סְמָדַר, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָסְרוּ אֶת הַזְּרָעִים וְהִתִּירוּ אֶת הַגְּפָנִים. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה הָאוֹסֵר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר, הַבָּא לֶאֱסוֹר וְלֹא אָסַר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְאַסֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**who planted** seeds in **the vineyard of an another** when the grapes on the vines were **budding, and** the **incident came before the Sages and they deemed the seeds prohibited** due to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds in a vineyard, **but they deemed the vines permitted.** The Gemara continues: **But why** did they deem the seeds prohibited? **Let** the Sages **say** through an analogous ***a fortiori*** inference that the seeds should be permitted: **And if that which renders** an item **prohibited,** i.e., the vine, which causes the seeds to be prohibited, **is** itself **not prohibited,** then with regard to the seeds, **which come to render** the vines **prohibited but did not render** the vines **prohibited, is it not logical that they should not be rendered prohibited?**


###### Menachot 15b:2
[Menachot 15b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:2)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם קַנְבּוֹס וְלוּף אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה, דִּתְנַן: הָיְתָה שָׂדֵהוּ זְרוּעָה קַנְבּוֹס וְלוֹף לֹא יְהֵא זוֹרֵעַ עַל גַּבֵּיהֶם, שֶׁהֵן עוֹשׂוֹת לְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים – שְׁאָר זְרָעִים מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא דַּאֲסִירִי. הַאי דְּעָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא – קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, הַאי דְּלָא עָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא – לָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן. אֲבָל הָכָא, לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the comparison: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the *baraita*, only **hemp and arum** are **prohibited** by **Torah** law to be sown in a vineyard, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Kilayim* 2:5): If **one’s field was sown** with **hemp and arum, he should not sow above them, as they produce** a yield only once every **three years. Other seeds are prohibited by rabbinic** law. Therefore, with regard to **this** person **who committed a transgression** by planting the seeds in the vineyard of another, **the Sages penalized him** and deemed his seeds prohibited, but as for **that** person **who did not commit a transgression,** i.e., the owner of the vineyard, **the Sages did not penalize him. But here,** in the case of *piggul*, which is a biblical prohibition, **let us say** such **an *a fortiori*** inference.


###### Menachot 15b:3
[Menachot 15b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:3)

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַכְּבָשִׂים, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מֵהֶן וּמִלַּחְמָן, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are those who teach** the dilemma of Rabbi Elazar **with regard to the lambs** brought with the two loaves, and not with regard to a thanks offering. **Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav:** In a case where **one slaughters the lambs** with the intent **to consume an olive-bulk from them and from their loaves** the next day, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Menachot 15b:4
[Menachot 15b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:4)

לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי כְּבָשִׂים לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, הַשְׁתָּא כּוּלּוֹ מִלֶּחֶם לָא מִפַּגְּלִי, מֵהֶן וּמִלַּחְמָן מִיבַּעְיָא? כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי לֶחֶם, מִי מִצְטָרְפִי כְּבָשִׂים לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי לְלֶחֶם אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Elazar elaborated: **I do not raise the dilemma with regard to rendering** the **lambs *piggul*** for the following reason: **Now** that in a case where his intent was to consume **an entire** olive-bulk **from the loaves** alone, the lambs **are not rendered *piggul*,** as the mishna teaches that *piggul* intent with regard to the loaves does not render the lambs *piggul*, then in a case where his intent is to consume half an olive-bulk **from them and** half an olive-bulk **from their loaves, is** it **necessary** to teach that the lambs are not *piggul*? Rather, **when I raised the dilemma,** it was **with regard to rendering the loaves *piggul*. Does** his intention with regard to the **lambs combine** with his intention with regard to the loaves **to render the loaves *piggul* or not?**


###### Menachot 15b:5
[Menachot 15b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף בְּזוֹ, הַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּל וְהַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן מְפוּגָּלִין. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה הַמְפַגֵּל אֵינוֹ מִתְפַּגֵּל, הַבָּא לְפַגֵּל וְלֹא פִּיגֵּל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּגֵּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav **said to** Rabbi Elazar: **Even in this** case, **the loaves are rendered *piggul* and the lambs are not rendered *piggul*.** The Gemara asks: **But why** should the loaves be rendered *piggul*? **Let us say** the following ***a fortiori*** inference: **And if that which renders** an item ***piggul*,** i.e., the lambs, since it is maintained that intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the lambs assists to render the loaves *piggul*, **is** itself **not rendered *piggul*,** then with regard to the loaves, **which come to render** the lambs ***piggul*, but do not render** them ***piggul*,** as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the loaves does not combine with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the lambs to render them *piggul*, **is it not logical that** the loaves themselves **should not be rendered *piggul*?**


###### Menachot 15b:6
[Menachot 15b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:6)

וּמִי אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר כִּי הַאי גַּוְנָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁזָּרַע כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ סְמָדַר וְכוּ׳. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר: מָה הָאוֹסֵר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר, הַבָּא לֶאֱסוֹר וְלָא אָסַר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְאַסֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do we say an *a fortiori*** inference **of this kind? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that there was **an incident involving one who planted** seeds in **the vineyard of his friend** when the grapes on the vines were **budding,** and the incident came before the Sages and they deemed the seeds prohibited due to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds in a vineyard, but they deemed the vines permitted. The Gemara continues: **But why** did they deem the seeds prohibited? **Let** the Sages **say** through an analogous ***a fortiori*** inference that the seeds should be permitted: **And** if **that which renders** an item **prohibited,** i.e., the vine, which causes the seeds to be prohibited, **is** itself **not prohibited,** then with regard to the seeds, **which come to render** the vines **prohibited but did not render** the vines **prohibited, is it not logical that** they **should not be rendered prohibited?**


###### Menachot 15b:7
[Menachot 15b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:7)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם קַנְבּוֹס וָלוּף אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה, שְׁאָר זְרָעִים מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא דַּאֲסִירִי, הַאי דְּעָבֵד אִיסּוּרָא – קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, דְּלָא עָבֵד אִיסּוּרָא – לָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, אֲבָל הָכָא לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the comparison: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the *baraita*, only **hemp and arum** are **prohibited** by **Torah** law to be sown in a vineyard. **Other seeds are prohibited by rabbinic** law. Therefore, with regard to **this** person **who committed a transgression** by planting the seeds in the vineyard of another, **the Sages penalized him** and deemed his seeds prohibited, but as for **this** person **who did not commit a transgression,** i.e., the owner of the vineyard, **the Sages did not penalize him. But here,** in the case of *piggul*, which is a biblical prohibition, **let us say** such **an *a fortiori*** inference.


###### Menachot 15b:8
[Menachot 15b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:8)

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַתּוֹדָה – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַכְּבָשִׂים, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַכְּבָשִׂים – כְּבָשִׂים הוּא דְּהוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה לִתְנוּפָה, אֲבָל תּוֹדָה דְּלֹא הוּזְקְקָה זֶה לָזֶה בִּתְנוּפָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **The one who teaches** that the dilemma of Rabbi Elazar was raised **with regard to the thanks offering** and the accompanying loaves, **all the more so** will hold that the dilemma may be raised **with regard to** the case of **the lambs** brought with the two loaves on *Shavuot*. **But the one who teaches** that Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma was raised **with regard to the lambs** and the two loaves, it is possible that he holds that the dilemma **was** raised only with regard to the **lambs** and the two loaves, **as they were bound to one another by waving,** since the priest waves the lambs and loaves together (see Leviticus 23:20). **But** with regard to **a thanks offering** and its loaves, **as they were not bound to one another by waving,** the dilemma was **not** raised, since it is obvious in this case that his intentions do not combine.


###### Menachot 15b:9
[Menachot 15b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:9)

רַבִּי אַבָּא זוּטֵי בָּעֵי לַהּ הָכִי, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר, מַהוּ? ״חֲבֵירוֹ״ כֶּבֶשׂ מַשְׁמַע, וְלָא מְפַגֵּל, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״לֶחֶם״ מַשְׁמַע, וּמְפַגֵּל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba the small** taught that Rabbi Elazar **raises the dilemma** in **this** manner: **Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav:** If **one slaughters** one of **the lambs** brought on *Shavuot* with the two loaves intending **to consume an olive-bulk from the other the next day, what is** the *halakha*? When this individual thinks of **the other,** does he **mean** the other **lamb, and** if so, the lamb **is not rendered *piggul*,** as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor *piggul*? **Or perhaps** when this individual thinks of the other he **means** the other part of the offering, i.e., the two **loaves, and** if so his intention **renders it *piggul*,** as taught in the mishna.


###### Menachot 15b:10
[Menachot 15b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא פִּיגּוּל וַחֲבֵירוֹ כָּשֵׁר, לֶאֱכוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר – שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים, אַלְמָא ״חֲבֵירוֹ״ כֶּבֶשׂ מַשְׁמַע! דִּלְמָא דְּפָרֵישׁ וְאָמַר ״חֲבֵירוֹ כֶּבֶשׂ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav **said to** Rabbi Elazar: **You learned** in a mishna (16a): If **one slaughtered one of the lambs** with the intent **to partake of it the next day, that** lamb is ***piggul* and the other** is **fit.** If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent **to partake of the other the next day, both** lambs **are fit,** as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor *piggul*. Rav concludes: **Evidently,** in this context the term: **The other, means** the other **lamb.** The Gemara rejects this proof: **Perhaps** the mishna is discussing a case **where he clarifies and says: The other lamb,** but the mishna is not referring to a case where he merely thought: The other.


###### Menachot 15b:11
[Menachot 15b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַזֶּבַח מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַנְּסָכִים, מִשֶּׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. הַנְּסָכִים אֵינָן מְפַגְּלִים אֶת הַזֶּבַח. כֵּיצַד? הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא וּנְסָכָיו מְפוּגָּלִין, לְהַקְרִיב נְסָכָיו לְמָחָר – הַנְּסָכִים מְפוּגָּלִין, הַזֶּבַח אֵינוֹ מְפוּגָּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The** animal **offering renders the** accompanying **libations** and meal offerings ***piggul* from** the moment **that they were consecrated in the vessel,** but not before; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. The libations do not render the** animal **offering *piggul*. How so?** In the case of **one who slaughters the offering** with the intent **to partake of it the next day,** the offering **and its libations are rendered *piggul*.** But if one slaughters the offering with the intent **to sacrifice its libations the next day, the libations are rendered *piggul*,** while **the offering is not *piggul*.**


###### Menachot 15b:12
[Menachot 15b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:12)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִסְכֵי בְּהֵמָה חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּם הַזֶּבַח מַתִּירָן לִקְרַב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the **libations of an animal** offering, **one is liable for** eating **them due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*, as the blood of the offering permits them to be offered** on the altar, and any item that becomes permitted for consumption or for sacrifice through a permitting factor can be rendered *piggul*, and one who partakes of such an item after its permitting factors were sacrificed is liable to receive *karet*. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Menachot 15b:13
[Menachot 15b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:13)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא זִבְחוֹ הַיּוֹם וּנְסָכָיו עַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים! אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּבָאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ לְזֶבַח אַחֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his offering today and** the accompanying **libations from now until** even **ten days** later. Evidently, then, the blood of the offering does render the libations permitted. Rabbi Meir **said to them: I, too, spoke only about** libations that **come** to be sacrificed together **with the offering** and were already sanctified in a service vessel for that purpose. The Rabbis **said to him:** But **it is possible to switch** the libations **for** use with **another offering.** Clearly, then, they are not considered an indispensable part of that offering.


###### Menachot 15b:14
[Menachot 15b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:14)

אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הוּקְבְּעוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, כְּלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Rabbi Meir holds** that the libations **are fixed** to this particular offering **at** the time of its **slaughter,** and one may not use them with another offering. Accordingly, these libations are rendered *piggul* on account of intent during the slaughter of the offering, just **like the loaves of a thanks offering,** which are fixed to a particular thanks offering upon its slaughter and become *piggul* on account of intent during the slaughter of that particular thanks offering.


###### Menachot 15b:15
[Menachot 15b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּם אָשָׁם מַתִּירוֹ לַבְּהוֹנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ הַיּוֹם, וְלוּגּוֹ מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a similar vein, **the Sages taught:** With regard to the ***log* of oil of the leper** (see Leviticus 14:10–20), **one is liable for** eating **it due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*** if the guilt offering that this oil accompanied became *piggul*, **as** the **blood** of the offering **permits it to** be placed on **the** right **thumb and big toe** of the leper. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** The Rabbis **said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his guilt offering today and** the accompanying ***log*** of oil **from now until** even **ten days** later. Evidently, the *log* of oil is not considered part of the guilt offering, and therefore it should not be rendered *piggul* on account of it.


###### Menachot 15b:16
[Menachot 15b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15b:16)

אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּבָא עִם הָאָשָׁם, אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם אַחֵר. אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הוּקְבְּעוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, כְּלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir **said to them: I, too, spoke only about** a *log* of oil that **comes with the guilt** offering. The Rabbis said to him: But even in this case, the oil should not be considered part of the offering, as **it is possible to switch** the oil **for** use with **another guilt offering. Rava said: Rabbi Meir holds** that the *log* of oil **is fixed** to this particular guilt offering **at** the time of its **slaughter** and is therefore rendered *piggul* on account of it, just **like the loaves of a thanks offering,** as the slaughter of the thanks offering fixes the accompanying loaves to that particular offering.